Economy of effort

Was given this consideration today.

Ok, this is gonna be as random as how I think.....so here goes.

You may have read about the disproportionate amount of money spent by Motorola, Apple, Gap and others on the RED campaign to raise awareness of the problem of AIDS in Africa.
It raised a total of 18 million dollars. The collective advertising blitz was 100 million.

The US has spent to the tune of more than 360 billion dollars on the "war on terror". That's alot of money on looking for Osama bin Laden and killing Saddam Hussein and the witch hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Global warming will probably kill 60 million living near coast. That's the direct effect. We've not taken into consideration the secondary effects of changes in weather patterns and what it'll do to our crops.

Do we set our resources based on the "potential damage" the source is capable of? Well, environmental change has the potential to eradicate mankind. Is it based on how volatile the onset of damage may be? Well, the environment may already have undergone a change that is non-linear and will likely to bring about abrupt changes. That's volatile too right?

Why am I talking about this? Well, these are examples of some possibly poor decisions. But we will never know what would have happened had the decision not been made (no time machine). Neither can we confidently state which of the alternatives available then was better (decision made on hindsight is always better, right?).

Let's look again at our neighbours.

Thailand. 95% are Buddhists. the remaining 5% comprises Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Catholics.... Let's put Muslims at a high end of the estimate. 4%. How much of your budget will you set aside to arrest a problem in your country that is created and affecting less than 5% of your population. No doubt the problem is widely reported. It's sensational. It's current. It's now. But so far as I know, the problem of insurgents in South of Thailand is largely within Thailand itself. No T3 (transnational terrorist threat).

Indonesia. They have a perceived problem with terrorists as well. If you're in Jakarta or possibly Surabaya, you might have seen security checking cars entering the shopping complexes and major buildings. That type of security isn't too bad. Because it provides job for the security guards. Does it really curb terrorism? I doubt it. But because it puts money in the hands of the poor, they are less likely to turn desperate. Indonesia proclaims a problem in their eco-system. I don't know about that. They also have a problem with corruption. Money being illegally siphoned out of their country. The money which would otherwise have been used to educate the people. Possibly build better roads. Better drains so that it'll flood less often. Better sanition so that in the event of a disaster (Indonesia quite prone to this), there will be less chance of outbreaks of diseases.

Economy of effort.

Thailand don't have to arrest the problem in the south. They have a moral obligation in the region but really, they should spend their resources on getting the country's economy back on track. However if that includes curbing the restless south, that would be economically sound.

Indonesia has a moral obligation as well. Being the largest Muslim democracy, it is also where several terrorist "attacks" have taken place. Jakarta and Bali comes to mind. I don't think more than a 10,000 died. But each day, corruption might have inevitably, yet systematically cause more deaths. Or did not prevent the deaths. So their resources should be geared towards better sanitation, public infrastructure etc etc which may come about if corruption in their country ceased. Or at least is reduced.

I think I'm skewed. Help me.